You do not understand US law respecting publication of classified documents.
Publishing classified documents is perfectly legal, and this has been well established in US jurisprudence. It might be illegal if Assange had participated in the extraction of the documents, but publication is OK.
Snowden leaked the classified material himself, and so he's much more comparable to Manning, who was convicted of a felony, than Assange.
Regardless of what Assange did or not do in Sweden, he has clearly committed illegal acts in the UK, and has seriously violated UK law, and this is not going to change with a change of UK government.
Assange was able to argue whatever he wanted against the extradition process, and the UK courts up to the highest level said the extradition was entirely legal. Nor is there any credible evidence that the US wanted to extradite him at any point in the process. What would we do to him? Publishing classified documents can make enemies, but it isn't a crime in the US. There's no point in making an extradition request if we can't convict him of anything.
If the US wanted to grab him off the streets, we'd have done it already. If he was in danger in Sweden, why did he move there in the first place?
Assange did not break a stack of US laws by publishing classified US documents. That is perfectly legal in the US. What's illegal is leaking them or assisting in such a leak. If Manning got the documents without Assange's assistance and handed them to Assange for publication, Assange has not committed a crime against the US.
Nor have I seen evidence that the US actually wants to get Assange, as opposed to making angry noises. What would we do with him? Doing anything other than due process would be politically bad, and we almost certainly don't have evidence to convict him.
No, there is a legal principle that extradition doesn't take place unless the alleged act was a crime in both countries. The UK court system had to find that what Assange was accused of is rape under UK law for the extradition to go forward. The UK courts are the exact correct venue to determine that, and that's what they determined.
This doesn't imply anything about Assange being guilty or innocent. That would be legally established in a trial Assange has taken great pains to avoid.
What was confirmed is that the allegations amount to rape, both in Sweden and the UK. If Assange did what two woman claimed he did, he is guilty of rape. What is not confirmed is whether Assange actually did what he is alleged to have done.
The problem is that things would be a lot worse without governments. Government is far from perfect, but it's an improvement over what we'd have without it.
There's a lot of room for an army officer to screw up and cost his men dearly before there's a court-martial. If the soldiers could file suit against an incompetent commander that's getting them killed, they wouldn't frag the guy.
Trump is still popular among Republican voters, even as he becomes more of a liability with everyone else. There are probably quite a few Republicans who'd be interested in getting Trump out of office but fear the voter reaction. The only way he's leaving before 2021 are if he dies or is clearly incapacitated, he resigns, or Republican voters get disgusted with him.
Historically, geographic boundaries have problems. On a river, in the absence of strong central governments, the river people on both sides tend to be much alike, and interact with each other. Then the central governments say "Here's a river, we'll use it for a boundary" and the river people get split up. Ideally, jurisdictions should become more homogenous as they divide up from larger to smaller.
If open source wants to seriously compete with closed software, they need to do everything closed software does, better than closed source, and they need to be compatible with that same closed software while doing it.
It doesn't have to do everything proprietary software does, just the stuff people want to do. Different office software exists on different platforms, and people seem to get along with it. We have Google Docs, the iOS office suite, and LibreOffice, to name three, that compete more or less successfully with Microsoft Office. They aren't going to replace MS Office, since there's a network effect, a lot of legacy MS Office stuff, and the fact that MS Office does do some things better than the competition.
Seems simple enough to me. You want to do something on a computer. You figure out what the best applications are. You figure out what OS they run best on. You figure out what hardware is best for your OS and apps. If your use cases are common, you can find something off the shelf. If they're unusual, it may take more work. You may wind up with multiple different systems; the devices for my personal use run iOS, Android, W10, and Ubuntu, in addition to what (Android?) runs on an eInk Nook, and each of those devices is good for my purposes..
An omnipotent God could put a dimmer switch on a star and fiddle with it, or put a big neon sign around it, or anything else. Therefore "God did it" is not falsifiable. An alien structure would have to adhere to certain physical laws, and we can observe the effects and rule out causes. This doesn't necessarily tell us that "aliens did it", but we could figure out exactly what's going on. If it's so incredibly improbable that it happened by natural causes that the likelihood of one within 1300 ly is vanishingly small, and it clearly could serve a useful purpose, that's at least some evidence of aliens.
C# to Java is something like being fluent in Danish and wanting to learn Swedish. C# to Forth is more like being fluent in Danish and wanting to learn Mandarin. The difference between two dialects of one language and two languages is very often whether there's a national border involved.
Both houses of Congress, the White House, and a large majority of state legislatures are currently controlled by Republicans. Why are you worried about liberals in government?
Obviously there is misguided idealism. There were a lot of highly idealistic Nazis in Germany in the 1930s and the first half of the 1940s, for example. What I'm saying is that idealism is necessary to get positive change done, not that it's sufficient or always helpful.
There were a lot more single issues than environmentalism back then. I haven't seen a major shift in previously steady values. Things have been changing in various ways my whole lifetime.
Yup. Supporting diversity is generally good per se. Supporting a monoculture of thought, or monomania, is bad. The idiot that is the subject of this is clearly on the wrong side.
First, it depends on what you're considering. If you're wondering about the fate of modern civilization, it isn't going to be overrun by barbarians. If you're looking at something more abstract, it may be relevant. It does have something to do with how Western civilization formed.
Second, more advanced societies can produce more and better things. Weapons are not an exception, and have not been for a long time. There are periods when barbarians have had better weapons than more civilized folk, but usually not for long.
Traditionally, a large percentage of barbarians (the dangerous ones, anyway) practiced the warlike arts, unlike more civilized people. More civilized people had higher population density, and therefore would prevail in battle, all other things being equal. Once military training got to be more effective than a lot of practice, the balance went even more in favor of civilization.
Booing the VP would be better? I think not. It's undignified, and would be subject to the same analysis (students disrespect VP). Sitting and listening quietly to something you find profoundly offensive feels icky at the very least. Try to find a better alternative.
Slashdot Mirror
You do not understand US law respecting publication of classified documents.
Publishing classified documents is perfectly legal, and this has been well established in US jurisprudence. It might be illegal if Assange had participated in the extraction of the documents, but publication is OK.
Snowden leaked the classified material himself, and so he's much more comparable to Manning, who was convicted of a felony, than Assange.
Regardless of what Assange did or not do in Sweden, he has clearly committed illegal acts in the UK, and has seriously violated UK law, and this is not going to change with a change of UK government.
Assange was able to argue whatever he wanted against the extradition process, and the UK courts up to the highest level said the extradition was entirely legal. Nor is there any credible evidence that the US wanted to extradite him at any point in the process. What would we do to him? Publishing classified documents can make enemies, but it isn't a crime in the US. There's no point in making an extradition request if we can't convict him of anything.
If the US wanted to grab him off the streets, we'd have done it already. If he was in danger in Sweden, why did he move there in the first place?
Assange did not break a stack of US laws by publishing classified US documents. That is perfectly legal in the US. What's illegal is leaking them or assisting in such a leak. If Manning got the documents without Assange's assistance and handed them to Assange for publication, Assange has not committed a crime against the US.
Nor have I seen evidence that the US actually wants to get Assange, as opposed to making angry noises. What would we do with him? Doing anything other than due process would be politically bad, and we almost certainly don't have evidence to convict him.
So why did he go to Sweden in the first place?
No, there is a legal principle that extradition doesn't take place unless the alleged act was a crime in both countries. The UK court system had to find that what Assange was accused of is rape under UK law for the extradition to go forward. The UK courts are the exact correct venue to determine that, and that's what they determined.
This doesn't imply anything about Assange being guilty or innocent. That would be legally established in a trial Assange has taken great pains to avoid.
What was confirmed is that the allegations amount to rape, both in Sweden and the UK. If Assange did what two woman claimed he did, he is guilty of rape. What is not confirmed is whether Assange actually did what he is alleged to have done.
The problem is that things would be a lot worse without governments. Government is far from perfect, but it's an improvement over what we'd have without it.
There's a lot of room for an army officer to screw up and cost his men dearly before there's a court-martial. If the soldiers could file suit against an incompetent commander that's getting them killed, they wouldn't frag the guy.
Trump is still popular among Republican voters, even as he becomes more of a liability with everyone else. There are probably quite a few Republicans who'd be interested in getting Trump out of office but fear the voter reaction. The only way he's leaving before 2021 are if he dies or is clearly incapacitated, he resigns, or Republican voters get disgusted with him.
Historically, geographic boundaries have problems. On a river, in the absence of strong central governments, the river people on both sides tend to be much alike, and interact with each other. Then the central governments say "Here's a river, we'll use it for a boundary" and the river people get split up. Ideally, jurisdictions should become more homogenous as they divide up from larger to smaller.
It doesn't have to do everything proprietary software does, just the stuff people want to do. Different office software exists on different platforms, and people seem to get along with it. We have Google Docs, the iOS office suite, and LibreOffice, to name three, that compete more or less successfully with Microsoft Office. They aren't going to replace MS Office, since there's a network effect, a lot of legacy MS Office stuff, and the fact that MS Office does do some things better than the competition.
Seems simple enough to me. You want to do something on a computer. You figure out what the best applications are. You figure out what OS they run best on. You figure out what hardware is best for your OS and apps. If your use cases are common, you can find something off the shelf. If they're unusual, it may take more work. You may wind up with multiple different systems; the devices for my personal use run iOS, Android, W10, and Ubuntu, in addition to what (Android?) runs on an eInk Nook, and each of those devices is good for my purposes..
An omnipotent God could put a dimmer switch on a star and fiddle with it, or put a big neon sign around it, or anything else. Therefore "God did it" is not falsifiable. An alien structure would have to adhere to certain physical laws, and we can observe the effects and rule out causes. This doesn't necessarily tell us that "aliens did it", but we could figure out exactly what's going on. If it's so incredibly improbable that it happened by natural causes that the likelihood of one within 1300 ly is vanishingly small, and it clearly could serve a useful purpose, that's at least some evidence of aliens.
And eventually another will arise with lemon-scented napkins.
C# to Java is something like being fluent in Danish and wanting to learn Swedish. C# to Forth is more like being fluent in Danish and wanting to learn Mandarin. The difference between two dialects of one language and two languages is very often whether there's a national border involved.
Both houses of Congress, the White House, and a large majority of state legislatures are currently controlled by Republicans. Why are you worried about liberals in government?
Obviously there is misguided idealism. There were a lot of highly idealistic Nazis in Germany in the 1930s and the first half of the 1940s, for example. What I'm saying is that idealism is necessary to get positive change done, not that it's sufficient or always helpful.
We seem to be in violent agreement here. If I was unclear, thank you for making more clear statements in support of what I was trying to say.
There were a lot more single issues than environmentalism back then. I haven't seen a major shift in previously steady values. Things have been changing in various ways my whole lifetime.
Yup. Supporting diversity is generally good per se. Supporting a monoculture of thought, or monomania, is bad. The idiot that is the subject of this is clearly on the wrong side.
In which case you doubtless have examples of SJWs dragging people in general off to prison at gunpoint.
Different life experiences sensitize people to different things, and contribute to different points of view. I'd think this would be obvious.
How relevant this particular bit of diversity is depends on the topic, of course.
First, it depends on what you're considering. If you're wondering about the fate of modern civilization, it isn't going to be overrun by barbarians. If you're looking at something more abstract, it may be relevant. It does have something to do with how Western civilization formed.
Second, more advanced societies can produce more and better things. Weapons are not an exception, and have not been for a long time. There are periods when barbarians have had better weapons than more civilized folk, but usually not for long.
Traditionally, a large percentage of barbarians (the dangerous ones, anyway) practiced the warlike arts, unlike more civilized people. More civilized people had higher population density, and therefore would prevail in battle, all other things being equal. Once military training got to be more effective than a lot of practice, the balance went even more in favor of civilization.
Booing the VP would be better? I think not. It's undignified, and would be subject to the same analysis (students disrespect VP). Sitting and listening quietly to something you find profoundly offensive feels icky at the very least. Try to find a better alternative.